Suppr超能文献

经济激励会影响提供者的行为吗?来自不同支付机制的现场实验证据。

Does an economic incentive affect provider behavior? Evidence from a field experiment on different payment mechanisms.

机构信息

a The Research Center of National Drug Policy & Ecosystem China Pharmaceutical University , Nanjing , PR China.

出版信息

J Med Econ. 2019 Jan;22(1):35-44. doi: 10.1080/13696998.2018.1539399. Epub 2018 Nov 15.

Abstract

AIMS

This study analyzed discrepancies in the quantity of medical services supplied by physicians under different payment systems for patients with different health statuses and illnesses by means of a field experiment.

METHODS

Based on the laboratory experiment of Heike Hennig-Schmidt, we designed a field experiment to examine fee-for-service (FFS), capitation (CAP), and diagnosis-related group (DRG) payment systems. Medical students were replaced with 220 physicians as experimental subjects, which more closely reflected the clinical choices made by physicians in the real world. Under the three payment mechanisms, the quantity of medical services provided by physicians when they treated patients with different health statuses and illnesses were collected. Finally, relevant statistics were computed and analyzed.

RESULTS

It was found that payment systems (sig. = 0.000) and patient health status (sig. = 0.000) had a stronger effect on physicians' choices regarding quantity of medical services than illness types (sig. = 0.793). Additionally, under the FFS and CAP payment systems, physicians overserved patients in good and intermediate health while underserving patients in bad health. Under the DRG payment system, physicians overserved patients in good health and underserved patients in intermediate and bad health. Correspondingly, under FFS and CAP, the proportional loss of benefits was the highest for patients in bad health and the lowest for patients in good and intermediate health; while under DRGs, patients in good and intermediate health had the largest and smallest loss of benefits, respectively.

LIMITATIONS

In order to increase external effects of experiment results, we used the field experiment to replace laboratory experiment. However, the external effects still existed because of the blurring and abstraction of the parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Medical treatment cost and price affected the quantity of medical services provided by physicians. Therefore, we proposed that a mix of payment systems could address the common interests of physicians and patients, as well as influence incentives from payment systems.

摘要

目的

本研究通过现场试验分析了不同支付制度下不同健康状况和疾病患者的医生医疗服务量差异。

方法

本研究以 Heike Hennig-Schmidt 的实验室实验为基础,设计了一个现场实验来检验按服务收费(FFS)、人头付费(CAP)和诊断相关分组(DRG)支付制度。用 220 名医生代替医学生作为实验对象,更接近现实世界中医生的临床选择。在这三种支付机制下,收集医生治疗不同健康状况和疾病患者时提供的医疗服务量。最后,进行了相关的统计分析。

结果

发现支付制度(sig. = 0.000)和患者健康状况(sig. = 0.000)对医生医疗服务量选择的影响大于疾病类型(sig. = 0.793)。此外,在 FFS 和 CAP 支付制度下,医生对健康状况良好和中等的患者过度服务,而对健康状况差的患者服务不足。在 DRG 支付制度下,医生对健康状况良好的患者过度服务,对健康状况中等和差的患者服务不足。相应地,在 FFS 和 CAP 下,健康状况差的患者的利益损失比例最高,健康状况好和中等的患者的利益损失比例最低;而在 DRGs 下,健康状况好和中等的患者的利益损失最大和最小。

局限性

为了提高实验结果的外部效应,我们用现场实验代替了实验室实验。然而,由于参数的模糊和抽象,仍然存在外部效应。

结论

医疗费用和价格影响了医生提供的医疗服务量。因此,我们提出混合支付制度可以兼顾医生和患者的共同利益,同时影响支付制度的激励。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验